This proposal feels quite clear, but it seems to suggest that OWL 1.1 DL
is a sublanguage of OWL 1.1 Full ...
in the F2F when we discussed fragments, it was felt that fragments
should be defined syntactically, but could, in their conformance
statements, specify weaker semantic conditions.
Thus, my reading of this is that OWL 1.1 Full would have univocal URIs,
and that OWL 1.1 DL would be a syntactic fragment that had weaker
semantic conformance conditions, permitting but not requiring, punning
implementations.
Jeremy
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> There has been discussion on compatibility between OWL 1.1 DL and OWL
> Full as well as backwards compatibility between OWL 1.1 DL and OWL 1.0
> DL.
>
> I propose the following solution, which defines what we want for
> compatability as well as changing DL in line with the practice of
> existing DL reasoners. (Changes are marked with *.)
>
> OWL Full: RDF extension
> - Normative syntax is RDF graphs.
> - Normative semantics is an extension of RDFS Semantics with
> extra semantic conditions on RDF(S) and OWL vocabulary.
> - Any RDF graph is a valid "input".
> - Some RDF graphs are ontologies,
> - namely those that ... owl:Ontology.
> - It is expected that inputs will be ontologies.
>
> OWL DL: Ontology Language with Semantic Web basis
> - Normative syntax is the functional-style syntax.
> - Normative semantics is the DL-style semantics.
> - Only ontologies that meet all requirements of FS syntax are allowed,
> - including the non-local requirements related to simple roles.
> * Annotations are not allowed on the right-hand side of entailments.
> - This fixes the problem noted in ISSUE-72 at the expense of limiting
> what sort of questions can be asked in OWL DL.
>
> Relationship between the two views:
> 1/ There is a translation T from the functional-style syntax to RDF
> triples.
> 2/ If O, O' are valid LHS and RHS for OWL DL entailment
> then O |= O' in OWL DL implies that T(O) |= T(O') in OWL Full
> - This is the current relationship between OWL DL and OWL Full, where
> there are more entailments in OWL Full than in OWL DL.
> It allows for punning, defining how OWL DL and OWL Full are allowed
> to relate in this area.
>
> Desirable backward-compatibility property:
> 1/ If O, O' are valid LHS and RHS for OWL 1.1 DL entailment
> and O |= O' in OWL 1.0 DL iff T(O) |= T(O') in OWL 1.0 Full
> then O |= O' in OWL 1.1 DL iff T(O) |= T(O') in OWL 1.1 RDF
> - This says that we keep exact correspondence whereever possible.
>
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
>